What I'd like to see is elections being won by majority vote. Winning by plurality is an easy recipe for discontent. Have elections done as they are now, and have an automatic runoff election between the top two candidates if no one gets majority. Doesn't seem that hard to code, and it's simple to understand.

The run-off system actually has the same problems as plurality, plus more. (Though it's harder to see them without close examination.) I would change it to Concordet or approval method, if it were to be changed. They have much better mathematical properties than either run-off or plurality.

*squint* I know You or someone else posted a website with what those things meant, but I've forgotten what it was, and forgotten what they meant, so now I don't know what's going on. *cough* Someone point me to the site and/or thread said site was mentioned in?

Yeah, but that would confuse a lot of people, I'd think.

I love Roark's ideas, and personally, if Hallifax is player run, I intend to make it as efficient of a democratic government as possible. Such as, the city leader holds the Chief spot at meetings, but all Council members have equal vote, etc.

What I'd ideally like to see is a lot more choices in the different political and election types. But given each needs to be coded... I can't see it happening.

The only little problem with contesting guild leaders is that you need to be gr5 to be able to contest.
This makes that almost the only people who will ever contest are the secretaries of the guild (or those who should be secretaries but are too lazy to apply ).
But I do like the idea of the Seneschal/Prince/Emperor/whatever as a moderator and not "the decisive vote and final voice", as theoretically the GM of each guild are the ones who better represent the voice of said guild, and the people within, while the officer voted by the entire city usually is the most popular, or the less hated, or just the one who got a less divided vote (he didn't apeal to the majority of the people, but to a large enough group).

You know, I really don't think Nikua would fight to be the one who has to make the final decision. It's not his favorite part of the job. I see city/comune leader as the person who is given every power possible in time of emergency, but during peaceful times, is more of a leader for the leaders. Organizes them, so they can meet and discuss the commune. Deals with disputes within the commune, etc. But you also have the realize, that if the GMs are a guild's rep in the city/commune, it kind of implies that a city/commune elader is supposed to be the rep to the rest of the world.

This sounds like the way the US was originally intended. If you read the original inaugural addresses of presidents, they give frequent mention that in times of peace they are more of an "organizer" for internal affairs and do not have te authority to meddle in any internal affairs of the nation. But they make claims of possessing strong power in foreign affairs, being like an oficial spokesperson for the whole nation to the rest of the world as you state above. (You can read some of those addresses here.)

But there are many other alternatives. One of the most unusual is John Locke's model for government in his 2nd treatise. He actually split these two roles into two seperate people. He made the executive president the organizer described here in times of peace (and also the supreme judge rather than making judicial its own branch). Then he had foreign affairs be the 3rd branch of government instead of the judicial, which was a whole different person than the president. Perhaps your GMs elect their president amunst themselves, who acts as the organizer and facilitator of the legislature. And then the at-large city leader just acts in the capacity of foreign relations, including carrying out war when war is called upon by the city.

Though any of those schemes would of course require some sort of formal constitution, etc., etc.

Roark's using his smarts again.

Can't. Handle. Info. Too. Much.

I've been praying for someone to say that for ages now. It's sooo nice to know I'm not alone.

Regardless of what form of gov is in place the population is going to do what ever they want to do. Laws that are unpopular just get ignored or circumvented because people play this game to have fun and nobody wants to spend real money on credits and then have some bozo in power tell em how to run their char.

All the various govs enacted plans or laws are democratic, regardless of weather they say they are a dictatorship or a democracy in that the population agrees and follows them or ignores them and does their own thing. The governments of the basin try their best to impose themselves on the populations but Im happy to see that it only works as much as people allow it. Thankfully the govs are a minor annoyance easy dismissed with CTOFF.

Mhaldor is anything but a democracy and they have a lot of fun anyway, or so they say.

The US government is the most brilliant designed Government ever.

It was designed to be slow, so no one man can take power.

Roark, will you marry me? *hopes*

Back on topic, the reason Imperian's system works the way it does is because there are five popularly elected representatives instead of only one. Having the only popularly elected representative from the commune being unchallengable just doesn't make sense. It's like the guilds banning people from challenging the guildmasters just because.

Ok, a lot of people responded to the contesting point.

How about no leader for commune, but a council of 5, the GMs and two people voted in by the commune? This way when a decision is made, it is made by all of them? I don't really see a commune being run by one person. I think something like this was done in Aetolia, but the Ministers would still be there.

What if you had the 3 guild leaders nominate a minimum of two people to run.

This way the citizens can pick from a list of people that the guild leaders feel will be best to run the city. And each nomination needs the approval of all city leaders, or atleast majority if we ever get more than 3 guilds per city. (but a minimum of 3 people agreeing)

Problem with that: if one faction gets in power, it stays in power. GMs would only favour people that agree with them, so there's little chance of GMs getting outsed. Also, with GMs having say over who gets to run, it would be hard for someone who disagrees with the GMs, but has the backing of a lot of the rest of the commune, to get power.

yeah and the rich get richer despite the efforts of the working class... just because people say they support you, doesn't really mean they support you untill they speak up for you or money up or something. And if people spoke up, the GM would be forced to nominate that person.

You know what? I'll just make Lomdomian run for Seneschal, then have him sit back and let the council do all the work, and only occasionally paddle them with his broom if they're misbehaving. Sounds like a plan?


Just kidding. Or not In fact I'd like to see something like this happen... just Lom ain't the leadership type